I revised the form of my design document, taking in consideration what has been said earlier. And I notice I will have trouble swallowing. The index should look something like the following:

0. Structure, Purpose and Scope of This Document
1. Abstract
2. a.) Free form Explanation of Nokkapokka
b.) Description of game mechanics and elements in Nokkapokka
c.) Game algorithms and game objects in Nokkapokka

3. a.) Free form Explanation of Kärhämät
b.) Description of game mechanics and elements in Kärhämät
c.) Game algorithms and game objects in Kärhämät

4. a.) Free form Explanation of Vihollisuudet
b.) Description of game mechanics and elements in Vihollisuudet
c.) Game algorithms and game objects in Vihollisuudet

5. Audiovisual Overview
a.) Suggestions for the look, sound and feel of the game
b.) User interface

6. Metastuff, some reflection on the process, open problems, other notes

Appendices
-Licences
-Analysis of the gameplay
-Feedback and history

The whole idea of game design is to outsource the content of your mind so that other people can understand and follow what is it that you want to present. As with any kind of human interaction this poses a mountain of problems but I wont get to them here.

This beforementioned practical aim dictates in part the scope, shape and the content of the game design document. Not having got any look at professional design document templates I have one idea to guide me in shaping the design document for The Apprentice. My document will progress in increasing order of abstraction. The document begins with what is most apparent for the player and progresses toward the technical execution of the game. From quite a freeform explanation of the player sees, hears and interacts with to pseudo-code and descriptions and lists of the game objects. So, the index might look something like the following:

1. (Metastuff)

2. a.) Free form explanation of Nokkapokka (in the order of a thorough game review)

b.) Description of game mechanics and elements

c.) Game algorithms and game objects

3-4. (same  for Kärhämät and Vihollisuudet)

5.-n.) (more metastuff, some reflection on the process, open problems, other notes)

+ possible Appendices

A good way to get things started is to slice it up in smaller pieces and making yourself more manageable (let alone understandable) workload.

As described earlier I have divided my game design project (The Apprentice) in to three parts, each being a subset of that before it. These slices are codenamed: “Nokkapokka”, “Kärhämät” and “Vihollisuudet”. Starting next Monday 13. August I will begin a two week stint to flesh out the design for Nokkapokka. Another two weeks from that will be allocated for Kärhämät. Perhaps surprisingly the next two weeks are allocated for Vihollisuudet. After this six weeks another two week period will be allowed for outside comments (none are expected). After this 8 weeks Nokkapokka goes code.

So the timetable so far will look something like this:

1. Nokkapokka Design document: 13. August – 26. August.
2. Kärhämät Design document:  27. August – 9. September.
3. Vihollisuudet Design document:  10. September – 23. September.
4. The Apprentice (worktitle) Design document open for outside comments. Possible comments might lead to rewriting of the Design document or parts therein. 24. September – 7. October.

Success of this plan is not expected. Failure, however, will be met with resolve. Note also that the 4. stage is actually redundant, the document and the whole project are open for any comments at any time. Any comments? You know what to do!

I think it’s customary for apprentices to produce something according or set to a traditional mould before you’re allowed to come up with more original stuff. For this reason as well as because I’m stripped for original ideas, my apprenticeship project is to design a traditinional vertical scrolling shoot’em up. With a number of twists of course.

Skeleton of a design document